Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: A prospective exploratory study

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Bramer, Wichor M ^a   Rethlefsen, Melissa L ^b   Kleijnen, Jos ^c,d   Franco, Oscar H ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c KLEIJNEN SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS LTD   (United Kingdom)

^d MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Databases, bibliographic; Information storage and retrieval; Review literature as topic; Sensitivity and specificity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DATA BASE; EXPLORATORY RESEARCH; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT PRECISION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WEB OF SCIENCE; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LITERATURE; STANDARDS;

DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 85037342492     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Levay P, Raynor M, Tuvey D. The contributions of MEDLINE, other bibliographic databases and various search techniques to NICE public health guidance. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2015;10:50-68.
2. Stevinson C, Lawlor DA. Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns? Complement Ther Med. 2004;12:228-32.
3. Lawrence DW. What is lost when searching only one literature database for articles relevant to injury prevention and safety promotion? Inj Prev. 2008;14:401-4.
4. Lemeshow AR, Blum RE, Berlin JA, Stoto MA, Colditz GA. Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:867-73.
5. Zheng MH, Zhang X, Ye Q, Chen YP. Searching additional databases except PubMed are necessary for a systematic review. Stroke. 2008;39:e139. author reply e140
6. Beyer FR, Wright K. Can we prioritise which databases to search? A case study using a systematic review of frozen shoulder management. Health Inf Libr J. 2013;30:49-58.
7. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: The Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom. 2011.
8. Wright K, Golder S, Lewis-Light K. What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies? Syst Rev. 2015;4:104.
9. Wilkins T, Gillies RA, Davies K. EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine searches: can MEDLINE searches find the forest or a tree? Can Fam Physician. 2005;51:848-9.
10. Halladay CW, Trikalinos TA, Schmid IT, Schmid CH, Dahabreh IJ. Using data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:1076-84.
11. Ahmadi M, Ershad-Sarabi R, Jamshidiorak R, Bahaodini K. Comparison of bibliographic databases in retrieving information on telemedicine. J Kerman Univ Med Sci. 2014;21:343-54.
12. Lorenzetti DL, Topfer L-A, Dennett L, Clement F. Value of databases other than MEDLINE for rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:173-8.
13. Beckles Z, Glover S, Ashe J, Stockton S, Boynton J, Lai R, Alderson P. Searching CINAHL did not add value to clinical questions posed in NICE guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1051-7.
14. Hartling L, Featherstone R, Nuspl M, Shave K, Dryden DM, Vandermeer B. The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:1-13.
15. Aagaard T, Lund H, Juhl C. Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews-are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:161.
16. van Enst WA, Scholten RJ, Whiting P, Zwinderman AH, Hooft L. Meta-epidemiologic analysis indicates that MEDLINE searches are sufficient for diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1192-9.
17. Rice DB, Kloda LA, Levis B, Qi B, Kingsland E, Thombs BD. Are MEDLINE searches sufficient for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools? A review of meta-analyses. J Psychosom Res. 2016;87:7-13.
18. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BM, Anderson PF. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2013;2:115.
19. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BMR. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study. Syst Rev. 2016;5:39.
20. Ross-White A, Godfrey C. Is there an optimum number needed to retrieve to justify inclusion of a database in a systematic review search? Health Inf Libr J. 2017;33:217-24.
21. Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. A pragmatic evaluation of a new method for librarian-mediated literature searches for systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2017. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1279.
22. Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. A systematic approach to searching: how to perform high quality literature searches more efficiently. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018.
23. Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:617-26.
24. McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93:74-80.
25. McKibbon KA, Haynes RB, Dilks CJW, Ramsden MF, Ryan NC, Baker L, Flemming T, Fitzgerald D. How good are clinical MEDLINE searches? A comparative study of clinical end-user and librarian searches. Comput Biomed Res. 1990;23:583-93.
26. Michaleff ZA, Costa LO, Moseley AM, Maher CG, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, Sherrington C. CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE are the most comprehensive databases indexing randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions. Phys Ther. 2011;91:190-7.